73° and Mist
Image
6-09-2025 12:16am
OPINION & ANALYSIS: Why We Face an Affordable Housing Problem in the Boston Metro Area
Darlene Cancell
Editor
By John Aram, Contributor
A shortage of affordable housing indisputably threatens the economic viability of the Greater Boston region. A report from the Boston Foundation several years ago indicated that rents in cities like Atlanta or Austin are 30-50% lower than in Boston and housing development per capita is up to three times greater elsewhere. This report observes, “Despite a booming local economy, housing costs are squeezing low- and middle-income families, and we aren’t building enough new housing or affordable enough housing to fix the problem.”[1] The housing shortage is estimated to lack 220,000 additional units in Metro Boston by 2035. [2] People and businesses leave the Boston area due to its high cost of living.
In 2022, Westwood became one of the first commuter rail communities in MA to rezone for multi-family housing in conformance with state law known as the “MBTA Communities Act,” passed in 2021. The act requires 177 municipalities in our region (Boston exempted) to rezone in order to make land available for medium density, affordable housing.[3]
Affordable housing is defined as resident income no less than 80 percent of area median income. The amount of required affordable multi-family housing in each town depends on town size and proximity to rail or bus transportation.
Under this act, Westwood is obligated to make 50 acres of land available near public transportation for at least 870 units (15% of its 5,800 housing units in 2020).[4]
In May of 2024, Town Meeting members approved four underutilized areas in the Town, and in September, 2024, the Select Board approved the first project under the rezoning ordinance – 24 units of affordable housing within a 160 unit mixed-use residential/commercial property at 22 Everett St.
In one sense, Westwood’s re-zoning simply represents its response to the state mandate. Yet, it can be argued that these developments carry a larger significance – that regional crises, such as a shortage of affordable housing – result from the long-standing policies. Rather than autonomous, self-governing entities, all communities need to be part of the solution to problems such as a regional housing shortage.
Let’s examine several possible reasons for the shortage of affordable housing in our region. I believe at least four policies have played a role: transportation, taxation, public housing, and education financing.
Transportation. Since the 1950s, Federal and State governments have funded an enviable interstate highway system, connecting our major urban areas and facilitating automobile commuting between central cities and suburbs. This development, however, has also allowed the decline of central cities by facilitating movement by higher income families out of the city centers.
Taxation. There may be a number of reasons why people choose to move out of a central city – more space, newer homes, reputable schools, and a variety of other amenities. In addition, there is a federal capital gains tax exclusion of $500,000 for a married couple and $250,000 for a single taxpayer on the sale of a home lived in for two years. This provision may act as an incentive to sell an appreciated home in a denser urban area and buy a residence in an outlying area.
Land Use. Each outlying community naturally looks internally to maintain, if not enhance its housing stock, and thus its own retail and commercial property values. Intentionally or inadvertently, zoning for single family residences has an exclusionary effect on the development of low or moderate income multifamily housing. Regional consequences result when public subsidies for housing become concentrated in the central cities, reinforcing the cycle of a low tax base and underfunded public education. A recent study from the Brookings Institute observes, “Public housing developed from the 1950s through 1970s was largely built in poor, racially segregated neighborhoods, because that’s where government agencies could acquire land—and where middle-class white voters didn’t protest too vehemently.”[5]
Public Education. Communities seek to maintain, if not increase, property values in order to provide their schools with smaller classes, more diverse curricula, modern facilities, and more advanced equipment. In turn, a reputation for high quality schools attracts families who can afford higher real estate taxes. Because single-family housing is generally more expensive than multi-family housing, zoning for single-family housing is likely to maintain the economic exclusivity of a community. Due to common zoning restrictions in higher-income communities, our system of public education finance is part of the virtuous and vicious cycles of housing affordability, school financing and reputation, and community attractiveness.
Conclusion. Tension often exists between the Home Rule provision of state law and the burdens that state mandates impose on local communities. Some communities may feel that the MBTA Communities Act represents an unwanted incursion into local prerogatives. [6]However, from a larger perspective, the Act represents a collective response to a collective crisis. What is the obligation of the state if not to ensure the long-term economic viability of the Boston region? While it is true that the State can become overly invasive, it is also true that local autonomy can be collectively dysfunctional in the long run. Given the impact of the housing crisis on all of us, we all need willingly to assume our piece of the solution, as Westwood is doing.
-----
[1] The report also states that over a ten year period, the Boston Metro area created 275,000 new jobs but only built 108,000 new homes. https://www.tbf.org/blog/2019/november/grogan-4-things-housing-20191127
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-06/massachusetts-needs-222-000-housing-units-by-2035-to-ease-crisis
[3] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/06/business/mbta-communities-lawsuit-housing/A recent decision by a MA Superior Court judge ruled against nine communities challenging the MBTA Communities Act. In describing this decision, a report in the Boston Globe indicates that “...134 [communities] have now passed new multifamily zoning, and more than 4,000 units of housing are in the development pipeline in those districts....”
[4] https://www.townhall.westwood.ma.us/departments/community-economic-development/planning-division/mbta-communities-law
[5] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/four-reasons-why-more-public-housing-isnt-the-solution-to-affordability-concerns/#:~:text=Building%20subsidized%20housing%2D%2Dor%20for%20that%20matter%2C%20market,majority%20of%20land%20across%20cities%20and%20suburbs.
Also see, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360108976236
[6] https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/local-news/2025/02/19/milton-votes-against-delivering-mbta-communitiesact-action-plan/#:~:text=Last%20February%2C%20Milton%20residents%20voted,from%20Attorney%20General%20Andrea%20Campbell. Also see, https://westwoodminute.town.news/g/westwood-ma/n/286613/mbta-communities-act-constitutional-ag-has-power-enforce-it-not-right-now#:~:text=Westwood%20Minute%20notes%20that%20the%20practical%20result%20of,the%20Town%20of%20Milton%20and%20other%20MBTA%20Communities.
Thanks to John Aram, a retired professor of management policy and a resident of Westwood, for contributing this opinion and analysis to Westwood Minute.
Westwood Minute takes no position on the opinion articles that it publishes, but seeks accurate and thoughtful commentary on topics that matter to our community, from a variety of differing viewpoints. Feel free to reply with your reaction below, or submit another perspective to WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
